• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Generally, silence of the offeree does not constitute an acceptance of the offer. The reason for this is because acceptance requires that the offeree must express, either by words or by conduct

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Generally, silence of the offeree does not constitute an acceptance of the offer. The reason for this is because acceptance requires that the offeree must express, either by words or by conduct, the assent to the terms of the offer in the way indicated by the offeror. One of the requirements of a valid acceptance is that it has to be communicated to the offeror. Failure to communicate, being silence or inactive, will not constitute an acceptance of the offer and therefore no valid contract is made. . There is, however, not an absolute rule that silence can never amount to an acceptance. This means that there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, if the offeror has waived communication by indicating that acceptance may be formed by silence or inaction, then under this situation, the acceptance must be characterized by the presence of the intention of the offeree to bind himself to a contractual obligation. ...read more.

Middle

The problem arose because the auctioneer mistakenly sold the horse to someone else. The uncle then sued the auctioneer in the tort of conversion on the basis that the horse belonged to him. However, this was only so if there was a valid contract between uncle and nephew. The court held that there could not be a contract in the circumstances where the uncle imposed a contract by saying "if I hear no more about him I shall consider the horse mine".3 It was not possible for the uncle to unilaterally impose contractual liability on the nephew because of his failure to reply to the offer. As a result, there was no enforceable contract between them and thus the uncle had no claim against the auctioneer. The Judge held that it was not possible for the offeror to waive the need of communication and that silence can never constitute an acceptance. ...read more.

Conclusion

This case shows that judges are starting to relax the view that offeror can waive communication and the rule 'silence can never amount to an acceptance' is not as strictly applied as in Felthouse v Bindley. As a general rule, silence does not constitute an acceptance. Usually, the offeror cannot waive the need of communication by indicating silence will be sufficient as an acceptance. Under some circumstances, however, the court might say that an uncommunicated acceptance is sufficient for a contract providing that the offeree has intention to accept the offer. It all depends on the context in which the party makes the contract. Endnotes 1 Felthouse v Bindley [1862], 11 C.B.N.S. 869 2 Felthouse v Bindley [1862], 11 C.B.N.S. 869 3 Felthouse v Bindley [1862], 11 C.B.N.S. 869 4 Taylor v. Allon [1966] 1 Q.B. 304. ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Acceptance.

    4 star(s)

    Negotiation and the battle of the forms Where parties carry out a long process of negotiation, it maybe difficult to pinpoint when an offer has been made and accepted. In such case the Courts will look at the whole course of negotiations to decide whether the parties have reached an agreement at all, and if so when.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    make a contract * Agreement formed when a party accepts an offer made by other, it should be certain and final Type of Contract Termination of Contract * Escape from contract; - mutual / unilateral mistake - Misrepresentation of facts inducing another party - Duress inducing another party - Lack of capacity to contract (infancy, influence of drugs/alcohols/mental illness)

  1. unit3 law of tort

    The factors that Leonard must take into account when establishing whether to bring a claim of private nuisance against Ken. In deciding whether a private nuisance (of either type)

  2. Dealing with problems of offer and acceptance.

    However, the letter stated that Tom wanted to buy the car, he was asking for clarification as to payment terms. Parallels can be drawn to the facts in issue in Stevenson v McLean (1880)16, where Lush J stated: The form of the telegram is one of enquiry.

  1. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    (per Wright J.) Specific performance is not granted for contracts for personal services and contracts which require constant supervision. Injunctions. An injunction is an order, normally against the defendant, not to do a particular thing. An injunction cannot be used to get round the unavailability of specific performance where personal services are involved.

  2. Offer and Acceptance

    Not until I have his answer am I bound." The question was where exactly a contract was made in the case of instantaneous communications; it is similar in Sheena's case, on where her acceptance of the offer was made. It is important to be aware of where the acceptance of the offer takes place, in Confetti Records v Warner

  1. Contract Law - offer and acceptance.

    clear intention on the part of the person inviting the tenders to sell to the highest tender. In the above case the defendant's invited tenders from the plaintiff and another party to submit tenders for some shares and undertook to accept the highest bid.

  2. I have been asked to advise a client on considering contracting with a building ...

    On 25th March the claimants signed the form. They sued the defendant for breach of contract. The defendant was not bound to take the car. His signing of the agreement was actually an offer to contract with the claimant. There was an implied condition in this offer that the car

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work